Appeal 2007-2853
Application 10/255,922
In that regard, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Kent’s use of compatibilizer to form smaller areas of the polyolefin discrete
phase and Kent’s disclosure that larger voids are undesirable teach away
from combining Ashcraft’s larger aspect ratios for the void sizes with Kent’s
film. As the Examiner states, Kent discloses that using the compatibilizer
controls the size of the discrete polyolefin phase in the film, not the aspect
ratio of the void (Answer 5). In fact, the aspect ratio is a dimensionless
number comparing the length to the height of the void, such that a void
having a small volume may still have a large aspect ratio (i.e., a large length
as compared to the height). Therefore, we do not agree with Appellants that
Kent teaches away from using an aspect ratio of 10:1 to 100:1.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has
provided no evidence that one skilled in the art would be directed to
optimize the void size and aspect ratio of a voided layer to obtain a high
FLOP value, or that a greater length to height ratio of the voids enhances
FLOP values. Ashcraft discloses that optimum characteristics of opacity and
satin-like appearance (i.e., pearlescence) are achieved by controlling the two
average major void dimensions (i.e., length and height) (Ashcraft, col. 3,
ll. 1-4). As the Examiner states, and Appellants do not dispute, FLOP is a
measurement of pearlescence (i.e., the nacreous nature of the film) (Answer
6). Plainly, Ashcraft discloses that the lengths and heights of the voids
control the opacity and the satin-like appearance (i.e., pearlescence or FLOP
value) of the film.
From the above disclosure, Ashcraft recognizes the lengths and
heights of the voids as art-recognized, result-effective variables for
controlling the opacity and satin-like appearance (i.e., pearlescence or FLOP
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013